Election night open thread

Take it away.

Update: Coakley concedes. According to the teevee, Coakley actually lost among voters who liked Barack Obama, which is an interesting data point. In any case, the big question now is how the race reverberates in Washington. There's nothing about Scott Brown's victory that needs to derail health-care reform in particular, or the rest of Obama's 2010 agenda in general. But if Democrats decide to cower and hide, they can end Obama's presidency on Brown's behalf.

That said, I really wonder what the Democratic Caucus thinks will happen if they let health-care reform slip away and walk into 2010 having wasted a year of the country's time amidst a terrible recession. It won't be pretty, I imagine. If health-care reform passes, the two sides can argue over whether it was a success. If it fails, there's no argument.

What happened to the idea of Republican foot-dragging on HR making them look out of touch?

Dems took too long to get from the point where that looked like the story. Tonight's election won't change that fact. I fear Dems will still take far too long to get to a bill that isn't terribly different.

Their enemy has been the clock and they share some of the blame for dragging it out.

All I can say is "Oh well". The Democrats hopefully will hold together and pass the Senate bill, but there won't be any willingness to tackle tough issues for a while... No cap-and-trade unless Lindsey Graham's signalling isn't just as empty as Olympia Snowe's.

Pride goeth before the fall. If the spokespeople for administration policies had addressed the public decently, the bill could have been pushed through, and other things too. But they took their tone from the triumphalism of Pelosi. A lot of the blame for this should be laid at her (manolo blahnik shod) feet.

"The Republican answer to the uninsured is to pretend they don't exist." - HuckFinn

How different really is that from the Democrats who pretend that buying more of the same failed model constitutes "reform"?

Most people who voted in November with health care reform in mind wanted to move to a more universal system -- not just add another poverty program to an unsustainable system. The vast majority of those polled really did want health care reform: they wanted a different system that would solve the problems faced in all segments today.

I don't see why there is all this teeth-grinding over this. A look at the historical balances of the Senate show just how exceedingly rare it is for a party to have a fillibuster-proof majority. The nation is far more divided than that.

Of course, this was the outcome I was hoping for. Healthcare reform has utterly failed to deliver even decent projections of bending the curve, and the Dems were never together enough to muster 60 votes for a decent climate bill. Outside of those issues, I wasn't all that big on the administration's agenda.

Whoa! Let's take a step back from the ledge and recognize that the patchwork health system we have now is somewhat progressive. Catastrophic health costs are resolved through the bankruptcy courts.

Forcing everyone to buy private insurance and partially subsidizing it via with a de facto tax on the middle class is not progressive. It's fantastic for the health industry, which had been running out of paying customers. Alas medical bankruptcy will still exist.

Neither the Coakley campaign nor the national party showed any sense of urgency until the last few days. It was only a few months ago that Al Franken finally won his seat (in another blue state) by only a few hundred votes.

So what about this idea Jeff Davis is floating of having the House vote on the reconciliation before they vote on the Senate bill? Sounds promising. It might be enough to convince the House members that they won't get burned by voting on the Senate Bill.

I want to publicly congratulate Sen-elect Teabagger on what should be a pretty fun 3 year experiment for him. Since he's absolutely going to lose in 2012 when we have a national, and very partisan election, he oughta have fun and do whatever he wants. Go as far to the right wing extreme as his teabagger friends can imagine and beyond. Let the eagle soar like she's never soared before teabaggers!!

Athena_news, this is a three hour discussion, but the bill certainly does contain a great deal of reform. A more frontal assault would be more satisfying.

You talk about polls, I assume you mean polls (taken mostly earlier in 2009) showing public support for single payer, or "a robust public option." Those polls are highly deceptive, the support is extremely shallow. People are generally unwilling to take any risk or pay any price to expand coverage to others.

Having said that, seriously speaking, I unlike most liberal Dems really dont feel some sense of doom and gloom over losing a titular supermajority here. All anyone need do is listen to the shrill words of Bayh, Lieberman, and Nelson of Nebraska to see how paper thin this 60 votes was anyhow.

So, 2010 will be a fun and fruitless year in terms of improving the state of the union, but so what. Maybe we oughta let things fester here.

My sense is that even if Democrats don't have the votes in the Senate right now to really stick it to the banks, they should do everything in their power to make it clear to everyone which party is on the side on the banks and which party isn't. Seriously: focus on cramdown, credit cards, the tax on big banks, regulatory reform, the whole nine yards, and tar the Republicans at every opportunity as obstructionists in the pocket of the big banks. None of this stuff will pass due to Republican filibusters (joined by "moderate" dems), but at least the bloodthirsty progressives will be happy, and the independent who are suckers for populism will be happy too.

zeppelin003:
So, 2010 will be a fun and fruitless year in terms of improving the state of the union, but so what. Maybe we oughta let things fester here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

In any "let things get worse first" strategy you have to keep in mind that the working class and poor will pay the price for your higly uncertain future.

Clearly Coakley didnt cut it and her campaign was a dud. But the voters had their say. This is a referendum on Washington. 2009 was wasted effort and Obama has to take a large part of the blame. People are looking for someone to fight for them. You can just lay down and hope. In the end our Congress is a joke.

No. 2 – Democrats in the White House and Congress better deliver on some of their promises. “Voters are going to vote for change. They did in 2008. They wanted it, and they didn’t get it. And either we’re going to deliver the change or they’re going to deliver the change,” she said.

As a Democrat, I come away from this election thinking: This is great news for Democrats!

I will tell you why.

(1) The stimulus was too small. That led to unemployment being too high. The economy trumps all. This is an important lesson for Democrats: Don't be cowards when it comes to doing what is right for the economy. Push a bold agenda and don't listen to the naysayers.

The failure to provide a big enough stimulus focused on jobs is the single biggest reason for today's results.

(2) Along the lines of stop being cowards, Democrats need to ditch the filibuster. It is within their power with a majority vote to end the filibuster. If Democrats refuse to end the filibuster, then they are admitting that they do not believe in themselves and their ability to govern. If that is the case, they DESERVE to lose.

If this election ends the illusion that Democrats can govern with a weak agenda that is constantly at risk of being derailed by the 60th vote, that is emphatically a great thing. If it leads Senate Democrats to actually do what is in their power and end the filibuster (which besides being anti-democratic is also unconstitutional) that is a good thing.

Democrats should take away two lessons from this election.

(1) We need more stimulus. Voters will rightly punish incumbents for a high unemployment rate. If you think losing tonight was bad, wait until 2010 if Democrats are too cowardly to do what it takes to turn the economy around.

(2) End the filibuster. This will enable goal (1) not to mention health care reform. Not only that, it is the right thing to do even if it was not strategically advantageous, because the filibuster is clearly unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Maybe this will be a wake-up call to Democrats. Hopefully, they don't take the wrong lesson from this. The lesson is not to be even more weak. Democrats have bent over backwards to work with Republicans, as illustrated by the drawn out negotiations with Republicans that were for nothing. Time for new strategy. Change the rules in the Senate, and all else follows. Fail to change those rules, and suffer the consequences in 2010. End of story.

and just having listened to howard dean, i think he would rather see barack obama fail than health care reform succeed. does he honestly believe that going back to the drawing board at this time, with today's referendum, is going to have anything but chaotic and disastrous consequences for health care reform?
there are so many people out there with bad intentions now, it is scary.

the ruling sentiment of the MA election seemed to be "throw the bums out", Coakley was a "party hack", Brown was an "anti- tax outsider".

Nothing to do but focus on the fundamentals of jobs, health care, environment, war, taxes & deficits, and a believable vision of where the post-bubble economic recovery comes from.

I don't agree with the view that “at this point, it’s too late for Obama to do something on jobs”. Job growth is not just another issue for Dems, it’s the reason voters gave Dems a chance. And it’s not necessary to spend a large amount of money to deliver substantial job growth. The EPI plan costs $40 billion, and creates a million jobs. Germany also managed to create jobs without increasing the deficit. The Gagnon plan also might create jobs without increasing the deficit.

I’m not turning on Obama, his decisive and unhesitating response to the Haiti earthquake has renewed my admiration for the man. Nevertheless, I never dreamed that public transit & community colleges would be more expensive and worse quality under Obama than under Bush. I think, perhaps because of neoliberal influences, the Obama admin has been strangely passive in areas where small amounts of money would make a substantial difference.

I hope the results today are interpreted for what they are - a lack of will on the part of Obama and the administration to use the energy and support of 2008 in enacting meaningful "true" reform, instead of wasting precious political capital and time on so-called bipartisanship, "discussions" with Olympia and agreeing to anything and everything that Joe Lieberman wanted.

At the end, the bank bailout/compensation fiasco and the inability of Democrats (and Obama) to stand up for what we were promised in 2008 has finally caught up with them.

It's time now for "Senate Reform." The filibuster must be nuked, and Democrats must do it by emphasizing (like Jon Stewart last night) that they have an 18 vote majority in the Senate, and represent 75%+ of the country in terms of population. They need to kill, squash, destroy it, as well as the blue slip/holds system. Their argument: democracy, it's the 21st century.

Ezra, have you encountered the work of UT law professor Sanford Levinson, who wrote "Our Undemocratic Constitution" recently? The two of you are barking up the same tree an awful lot, it seems to me, re: the structural problems with our government.

WHAT??? It must have just been a "bad campaign". She just didn't do well. In fact, lets throw her under the bus, cause its not the D's fault. In fact I noticed that "Everyone" loves our health care bill, even those that don't pay taxes like it. Its so freaking great that nobody wants to be a part of it.

Ezra - you and other Dems continue to read this the wrong way. dem losses in 2010 will be worse if they PASS Hc reform. How does passing an unpopular bill make the Dem party more popular? Answer is it doesn't. Best bet for dems is to abandon HC reform quickly, focus on the economy and hope unemployment improves in next 6 months.

"I assume you mean polls (taken mostly earlier in 2009) showing public support for single payer, or "a robust public option." -HuckFinn

You are mistaken in your assumption. I mean that most want a change to something more rational and universal. They want freedom from worrying about how to get and pay for care for themselves and for everyone too. That doesn't mean they want to just bankrupt the nation.

Unfortunately, liberals can't get past the idea that universal doesn't have to mean government funded. They keep returning to the rejected models of single-payer and "the public option" (both of which are non-starters to me) because they can't imagine anything else -- even though most universal care systems are *not* single-payer.

"People are generally unwilling to take any risk or pay any price to expand coverage to others"

And they wouldn't have to if the Democrats had presented an actual reform package. You know the statistics: we spend twice as much as any other industrialized country and we get nothing for it. True reform wouldn't focus on more government spending, it would focus reallocating all spending on healthcare.

We could move to something like the German system (a real universal system) by changing how companies spend their healthcare dollars. Employer paid insurance could be replaced by payroll taxes that would raise the same amount of money and could be used to finance a real system. No one would loose the coverage that he has and no additional government spending would be required.

Anyone who equates "everyone will have some sort of insurance" (except those who get fined instead) with universal health care simply hasn't done his homework.

Obama's problem is he's taking office in 1930 instead of 1933. People have forgotten how we got into this mess.

And I'm sorry, it's long past time someone called out the Republicans as mendacious sociopaths. Their literal campaign strategy is to stop healthcare reform because it will fix a problem and make people happy. Their political plan is to keep Democrats from solving any problem, hoping that if things get worse, they can ride a wave of rage to victory. These are campaign tactics Stalin would have approved of.

Literally 45,000 people die every year because they're uninsured. You're seriously telling me that Voinovich, Snowe, Grassley, Graham, Collins honestly believe Obama's reforms would be worse than that? Are you freaking KIDDING me?

Say what you will about the Democrats, they didn't get obstrucitonistic until 2004, when it was clear Bush was insanely reckless and a huge liar.

The filibuster is empowering mendacious sociopaths. It's time to call them out, and it's long past time to get rid of it.

actually he's very charasmatic and a lot like President Obama in that way. but again if you're slanted to hate everything Republicans say and do i'd guess you'd say what you said. Its sad because anytime I've seen you post its always been positive. This is the first negative thing I've seen you mention.

Also as a side note CNN is reporting that Senator Webb (D) of VA issued a statement suggesting that Democrats do nothing on health reform UNTIL Senator Brown is seated (which should be fairly quickly considering there is no question that he won). Democrats are running for the hills. Ezra has the right tact to what they should do, problem is they won't.

This race only proves that a Democrat supported by the Party isn't always the best candidate, and a wild-swinging Republican can upset the balance. Did MA get a good Senator? Not really.
I am running in NY for US Senate, struggling against a Party with thick heads, against Lobby money, against massive spending, against the insurance industry Lobby, against the party of no....will I prevail? You tell me.
http://www.norenforsenate.com
I stand for something..will the media give me a chance to prove it?
Dr. Noren

It's safe to assume that we'll hear more anti-reform declarations from Jim Webb and his ilk in the next 72 hours. The meltdown had begun, and the death knell for healthcare reform has sounded, unless the House discovers a passion for ping-pong. Now it's the Nancy Pelosi show. I think she's the most underrated politician in America, but even she probably can't push this boulder over the crest of the hill, especially in light of Webb's and Bayh's comments today. A bridge too far, etc. In other words, kiss reform legislation goodbye.

Oh, Ezra, you silly child: you die-hard advocate of the 60-vote strategy; he-who-disdains-reconciliation; he of the sneering, "the public option doesn't matter;" Snowe-ass-kisser, "I haven't been following the Massachusetts election" (1/9/10). For so long you've argued to us progressives that if we gave a little -- well, everything -- on our concerns, we'd usher in a new era of reform.

And still nary a word of criticism of the administration. It boggles the mind.

Be careful what you wish for. The Republicans are now going to be expected to participate rather than obstruct. They can't claim they have no power against a supermajority. I honestly believe most people, at least independents who swing these elections, are more fed up with the hyper partisan politics that's really an embarrassment to this country. People are not just tired of the Dems, they're tired of Congress. It's a joke. Furthermore, the Republicans are going to be expected to live up to their populist promises, which should be an interesting conversion in practice. My guess is Obama tacks to the middle starting with the State of Union and Republicans will have to play ball or risk showing their true colors. Worse case scenario...Republicans win back the White House in three years and the cycle of political retribution begins anew. The Dems won't soon forget the tactics we've seen. Our political system really has become a joke. Feeling self-righteous has become more important than doing what's right.

Let's see. House Dems panic and freak out. Botch health care. Loose House majority. And then WHEEEE! Hearings on Obama's eligibility to hold office and "treason" (Cheney is called as a witness to define term). Articles of Impeachment go to Senate for trial. John McCain leads Republican prosecution team and is given permanent 30 minute slot on Meet the Press. 2012: Palin/Rubio ticket has 8% lead in polls immediately after Labor Day. Goldman Sacs share top $675. Unemployment at 11.7%. WaPo announces that Liz Cheney will replace Ezra Klein. You heard it first here.

I read two quick fixes in this thread: "Pass health reform through reconciliation." "End the fillibuster."

If you do more research, you'll discover that there are barriers to doing either. Howard Dean has been misleading people about reconciliation, most reforms can't be done this way. And "ending the fillibuster" certainly can only be done in long term, if at all.

Health care reform is dying friends. This entire argument is starting to go down the road of the too-big-to-fail bailouts, except the Democrats are the counterparties needing to be bailed out.

There probably arent the votes to pass the Senate bill in the House, and there obviously arent the votes to pass health care reform in the Senate anymore, so its dead, along with any chance to pass any other meaningful legislation.

In other news, the Jets are four quarters from the Super Bowl though!!

So the "Ted Kennedy seat" goes to a dood who SPECIFICALLY targeted the tyranny that is aka "the 0bama agenda" in the BLUEST of Blue States and you state: "There's nothing about Scott Brown's victory that needs to derail health-care reform in particular, or the rest of Obama's 2010 agenda in general."

That's ALMOST as moronic a statement as Steny Hoyer's saying that "the public is angry about is they see, first of all, an opposition for opposition’s sake.” Well, if that's so Sten, they 'splain WHY "the opposition" have now lost the last THREE MAJOR elections?! In otherwise Blue States?! (Okay .. Virginia was more purple, but still ..)

I know that delusion is a natural part of living and working in DC, but maybe you and Steny should get together and compare notes .. while driving each other to the nuthouse!

I was so much in a hurry to type that post .. the middle paragraph SHOULD have read:

That's ALMOST as moronic a statement as Steny Hoyer's saying that "what the public is angry about is they see, first of all, an opposition for opposition’s sake.” Well, if that's so Sten, they 'splain WHY "the opposition" have now won the last THREE MAJOR elections?! In otherwise Blue States?! (Okay .. Virginia was more purple, but still ..)

"actually he's very charasmatic and a lot like President Obama in that way. but again if you're slanted to hate everything Republicans say and do i'd guess you'd say what you said"

i see almost no similarities between scott brown and president obama.
i dont believe that barack obama would ever publicly insult or humiliate his daughters as i just saw scott brown do.....for starters.
i dont like senators or presidents who embarrass, humiliate or mistreat young women.
and i am not slanted to "hate" republicans and have written respectfully and kindly about olympia snowe and kay bailey hutchison not too long ago.
watching scott brown this evening, i think he looks like, acts like and talks like george bush, and from his comments this evening, he seems to have about the same depth.
what troubles me even more than scott brown tonight, were the statements of webb and frank.
and half of the country saying president obama is not doing enough, and the other half saying he is doing too little.
and howard dean, suggesting, after this evening's referendum, that we should go back to the drawing board and come up with a more liberal health care reform plan and try to pass it.
i think a group of random fifth graders would have more common sense, pragmatism and ability to solve problems with conventional wisdom than these senators.
president obama has done everything he could to try and pass health care reform in his first year.....and he meets nothing but obstacles and bludgeoning criticism every step of the way.
the withering lack of support of the left, and the way they have turned on obama will marry us in failure to those on the right who wish nothing more than the failure of this president.
huffington, dean, and now frank and webb are standing there with nails to hammer us all in the coffin.
they are doing the work for the republican party.
why??????????
we still have a chance to accomplish something, against enormous odds....why are they choosing chaos over progress?
what is the matter with them?

Wow Ezra! They actually pay you for such delusional out of touch thoughts... Your assertion (on MSNBC 1-19) that the Democrats must now "PASS SOMETHING" so they can get a few days of headlines" as a strategy of lesser evil completely neglects some facts:

- We toothless hillbillies in fly-over land actually understand that our children and grand children will continue to pay in taxes and loss of liberties for generations for the "Democrats Headline Day". We don't give a crap about their careers over our fortunes and rights.

- That the country is more important than political careers.

- That to pass nothing IS BETTER than "just anything".

- That once government passes a piece of excrement it dries up, stinks and sticks to you for years and you cannot "Debate it Away"

- In the mean time, the residue of their excremental bill becomes an addiction to those who want to live off the taxpayers dole.

If the Democrats don't "get-it" like you don't "get-it" there will truly be a turnover of a revolutionary nature in November.

The loss (actually, the last three big 0bummer/Pelousy losses in NJ, VA, and now the Bluest of Blue MASS) obviously is stinging you quite a bit. I know when the entire Country is rejecting your "Hoax'nChains" Marxist idealism, it's got to hurt. And I couldn't be laughing any harder at yours, Ezra's, or the Dim-o-RAT losses tonight! Get used to it. November will be VERY, VERY rough for you! lol

I'm furious that the Republican agenda of all-out obstruction to basic reform is paying off. How can we be still reeling from the damage done by Bush, and all the way back to Phil Gramm, and yet the answer is more Republicans?

Its as if the media has done a piss-poor job actually describing to voters and the public the vast damage that right-wing ideology has done to our nation.

its amazing that you call me a parasite (yet still don't share what it is you do). You'd have a shred of credence in any of your words if i wasn't one of the ones screaming from the rooftops for cost controls. You know what cost controls do for me JA. please go back to the hole you crawled back out from under.

I missed any comments about KBH or Ms Snowe so if I was wrong then I apologize. I also think you're being a bit hard on Senator Brown. I don't think anyone can judge what's in a man's or woman's heart by watching a speech. If he acts throughout his term as senator that furthers that point then you'd be right but for now I think you should give him the benefit of the doubt otherwise you end up sounding like sour grapes ala Maddow and Olbermann et al. oh and add my friend pseudo to that list.

I would expect a portion of MA voters voted for Brown for that reason (as more an anti-democrat because they stepped back from their PO) but I think you truly over-state the populous appeal of the FDL crowd. There is a growing sentiment out there that Americans do not trust the government to run healthcare and many of that stems from the fact that they see many things (bank bailouts, wars, stimulus and jobs et al) that the government does NOT do right. If we can't trust the goverment to do any of those things right what makes any sane person think they could handle doing healthcare via a public option?